Homework 3

New Favorite Hobby? Spotting Emoji's In Real Life.

I've been finding myself astounded at the impact of emojis has had on life for young Americans. And now, this article from The Creator's Project has me feeling even more bewildered about the concept of emojis. The article is about Daniel McKee, a London filmmaker who's put together a film entitled #emojisintheworld which is a collection of 817 different emojis represented in the real world. Below are some of the examples (credited to the site).

I remember that in high school, on occasion (when I was being exceptionally immature) I would carry on entire conversations exclusively using emojis. And now, I'm just awestruck that they're almost being used as an art form. I guess it does make sense, given that emojis are meant to be little depictions of feelings and facial expressions, but still! I'm very interested in seeing where this trend of #emojisinthewild will be taken. 

Project 1

The opening chords to a song that means a lot to me - Video

Homework 1

           I’m in strong disagreement with Dr. Panera, who seems to be under the impression that young people will only view art through a screen. The way that I see these screens is that they are a helpful enhancement that allows art to become available to a larger audience. I certainly can’t afford to go the L’Ouvre and see the Mona Lisa, but thanks to my screen I can still appreciate its existence and see what it looks like. I also can’t afford to go to any U2 concerts, but thanks to my screen I can get a little taste of the experience. Just because I have the option of viewing these things through a screen doesn’t mean that I would pass up the opportunity to attend these places or events. In fact, I think I speak for a lot of people my age when I say that I only use a screen for these things because I can’t experience or see the real thing.  So yes, humans do often view live things through a screen – but mainly as a substitute for the actual event.

        I’m quite interested by the question as to whether or not art has a responsibility to be entertaining. My question is, should art always seek to be a source of entertainment? There are some forms of art that are quite certainly meant to be entertainment: cinema, music, and books are a few examples. But my feelings about paintings, photos, and pictures in general have always been that they’re created to inspire or to show another viewpoint on something. If an artist wants his or her art to be a source of entertainment, then I absolutely think the art has a responsibility to be entertaining. However, if an artist creates his or her piece for any other purpose, it most certainly has no accountability for being “fun”.

My general feelings towards Panera’s article is that there may be some interesting content within, but it’s buried. The language that Panera uses feels inflated, and his assertions just scratch the surface without trying to go in depth; there’s simply no commentary. I would have enjoyed the article much more had Panera revised it to include more explanation and less pretentious language.